Super Bowl 50 generated a $240 million windfall for the Bay Area, according to figures released Monday by the host committee, but now it”s clear just how little of that money pouring into the region made it to the South Bay.

San Jose and Santa Clara, home to Levi”s Stadium, snagged only about 20 percent of the economic boost to the region, the host committee found.

San Francisco, which hosted a football theme park and a week”s worth of parties leading up to the game, received $137 million — or 57 percent of the total economic benefit, according to the report. The remainder was spread around the Bay Area with cities near San Francisco International Airport receiving the biggest impact.

The $240 million is the “final exclamation point of what we promised — a well-run, well-organized Super Bowl,” said Super Bowl 50 Host Committee CEO Keith Bruce.

Still, the figure is blushingly modest compared to recent Super Bowls — for example, a report commissioned by the committee that brought 2015”s big game to Glendale, Arizona, found that it gave a whopping $719 million economic boost to the Phoenix area.

Bruce said the Bay Area committee was determined to avoid the customary criticism of economic impact reports being overly rosy and insincere. Instead, the committee used a conservative methodology that excluded spending that would have taken place without the Super Bowl and took into account lost business caused by hosting the game.

Critics, however, still found reasons for concern. The host committee”s claim is undermined by its refusal to release anything more than a seven-page executive summary and two-page fact sheet that doesn”t fully spell out how it got its figures, said Roger Noll, a sports economist at Stanford University.

“The only conceivable reason to keep the main body of the report confidential is because it”s a joke and that someone would pick it apart,” he said.

Bruce countered the host committee wasn”t “hiding anything.” He said the report, conducted by Patrick Rishe, CEO of the firm Sportsimpacts, is private and that the committee was going to share the results “in a private way.”

The report found that the Super Bowl netted nearly $36 million in taxes for the Bay Area, while the host committee donated $13 million to regional nonprofits. The largest private benefactor was the hotel industry, which reaped $181 million during Super Bowl week, compared to an average of $41.6 million.

While private spending by visitors arriving for the Super Bowl was robust, the actual impact to taxpayers was fairly negligible. San Francisco has reported netting about $2 million from the event, which filled its plentiful hotel rooms but caused it to spend heavily on police overtime. San Jose, on the other hand, came out slightly behind, primarily because with nearly all the festivities occurring up north, its hotel taxes increased by only $500,000 instead of the $1.35 million boost city officials were expecting.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said in a prepared statement that he never expected to “draw as many out-of-town visitors as San Francisco” and that his city “shined” in the spotlight of the nation”s biggest sporting event.

Unlike San Jose, Santa Clara had an agreement to have the host committee cover its costs for being the site for the big game.

Still, Santa Clara Mayor Lisa Gillmor said she would be open to hosting another Super Bowl, but would first want to conduct an independent economic analysis for this year”s game, perhaps in partnership with San Jose and San Francisco.

“That would be prudent to do,” she said.

Bruce said the host committee”s report was far more prudent than many of its predecessors, which have provided fodder for skeptical sports economists who say that the committees typically inflate the economic value of hosting the Super Bowl.

The relatively modest economic boost associated with the Bay Area”s Super Bowl stems in part from the committee”s refusal to count spending by locals or spending on goods such as rental cars from national chains that would have quickly taken the profits out of the Bay Area, said Rishe, who also is the director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis.

Rishe also factored in lost economic activity from locals leaving the region and tourists and business conference operators choosing to avoid the Bay Area during Super Bowl week.

Still, Noll estimated that the true economic impact for the Bay Area of hosting the Super Bowl was likely closer to $50 million than $240 million.

Victor Mathewson, a sports economist at the College of the Holy Cross, agreed that the $240 million figure was likely inflated, but said it was probably much closer to reality than previous studies.

“I don”t know if they did it right,” he said. “But at least this is a group that is cognizant where you can go wrong and is not just trying to give you the biggest number possible.”

Contact Matthew Artz at 510-208-6435. Follow him on Twitter at Matthew_Artz.